ArticleResearch square2026
Gender bias in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease.
Article in Research square, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fairness in clinical machine-learning (ML) remains a critical challenge, particularly in neurodegenerative disease where demographic factors may confound disease-related patterns. We developed and evaluated bias-aware ML models for Alzheimer's disease (AD) classification using data from the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI), comprising 757 individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. Four supervised learning algorithms (logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and XGBoost) were trained using demographic, genetic, neuropsychological, and MRI-derived features. Sex was treated as a protected attribute, and bias mitigation was implemented using pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods within the IBM AI Fairness 360 framework. Bias mitigation reduced disparities in predictions, with disparate impact decreasing from 1.167 to 0.823. The logistic regression model with Disparate Impact Remover (LR/DIR) improved performance while maintaining fairness, whereas adversarial debiasing achieved the highest balanced accuracy (88.91%). Explainability analyses in the LR/DIR model using LIME showed altered feature attribution patterns with increased convergence between sexes and stronger contribution of clinical and gender-related variables after debiasing. SHAP analysis in the adversarial debiasing model confirmed that Mini-Mental State Examination score, functional status, age, and medial temporal lobe atrophy were the strongest predictors of AD. These findings demonstrate that fairness-aware ML can reduce sex-related bias in AD classification without loss of performance and improve interpretability through more balanced representation of disease determinants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.